Previous
Xbox Live DLC Roundup Review
Xbox 360 Review by Dan Whitehead
Page 4 of 4.
Page 3
Turok
- Multiplayer Map Pack - 400 Points (GBP 3.40 / EUR 4.80)
Apparently this limp shooter has sold over a million copies worldwide. Assuming most of those didn't find their way into the pre-owned bin within a week, that means there's a sizable audience out there for this generous selection of five multiplayer maps.
Or at least it looks generous...
Of the five maps, only three are actually new. The co-op map takes place in a dinosaur holding pen, and sets the Whiskey Company team the task of escaping from captivity to a waiting helicopter before Wolf Pack troops unleash the dinos. It's actually quite good, provided you can get enough players to make it interesting, and at least a little different to the usual co-op missions.
Desolation and Sentinel are two more traditional multiplayer maps, neither of which hold up particularly well against similar offerings in other shooters, but are decent enough by Turok standards. Sentinel is probably the better of the two, simply because its mountain-top location offers more variety and there are some larger dinos roaming around to keep things busy.
Dinosaur jokes are great. What do you call an FPS with crap controls? A Doyouthinktheytestedit.
Finally, we have Inconclusive Tests and A Rivalry Continues. These are what the blurb coyly describes as "re-lit" maps - in other words, these are maps you already have, but they've turned the lights off. Both Testing Ground and A Heated Rivalry are reused, but now they're played at night. While this does make a difference to how you play, it's rather disingenuous to claim they add two to the map total.
Of course, even three maps for 400 Points compares favourably with yer Halos and Calls of Duty, until you remember that those games are vastly superior to Turok in the first place. These could be the best multiplayer maps in the world, but they'd still be hamstrung by the fact that you have to play them using the still-clunky Turok engine.
5/10
Two Worlds
- Tainted Blood Pack - 600 Points (GBP 5.10 / EUR 7.20)
- Curse of Souls Pack 2 - 600 Points (GBP 5.10 / EUR 7.20)
And talking of games that probably can't be saved no matter how plentiful or generous the downloadable content is, here's Oblivion's mutant cousin.
That the game looks "like a sack of rotten crabs" was one of the nicer things Rob had to say about it, and so having failed to win over the solo adventurer Two Worlds is focusing on its lightweight MMORPG trimmings for downloadable entertainment.
Two new packs have appeared in the Game Store over the last few weeks - Tainted Blood and Curse of Souls. At a wallet-pinching 600 Points each, you get four new maps per pack, containing between 35 and 50 new co-op quests, along with a new PvP team game. Sadly, the co-op maps still suffer from the same problems as the online elements of the packaged game - namely poor design, sparsely populated lobbies and unacceptable frame rate issues.
Yes. He looks very scared.
The PvP game is simply a matter of stomping around four additional maps, collecting more orbs than the other team. "There is more strategy to winning than you think," declares the pre-download text. No, there really isn't. It's a mindless collect-'em-up with no depth whatsoever.
These half-baked offerings may placate those with no concept of what online role-playing is capable of in 2008, but even then 600 Points is far too much to ask. With a file size smaller than many Xbox Live Arcade games, it's clear that these are not the sort of expansions that a high-definition RPG requires. Really, how many worthwhile maps and quests can you fit into 46MB? There's precious little chance of these flimsy selections redeeming a very sloppy game.
2/10
Advertisement
Are you excited about Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Overlord
Turok
Two Worlds
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
Undertow
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation
Latest Features
Latest Videos
Exclusive: Overlord - Comparison [1] 30 June, 2008
Overlord: Raising Hell - Trailer [0] 19 February, 2008
Latest News
-
Overlord II given June date [7]
-
Overlord 360/PC DLC out today [9]
-
Overlord DLC heading to 360 [12]
-
Codemasters' Leipzig line-up [8]
-
Overlord demo on Live [40]
Latest Screenshots
30 June, 2008 [0]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-39 of 39 in total
Poster
|
0
Does Eurogamer buy these download contents themselves? If so they must have a HUGE credit card bill and a console full of all these contents. So how about an idea for a EG article then? Look at the total cost they have paid so far for ALL of their Xbox 360 download contents, evaluate whether or not the contents were worth what they paid for it, and conlclude for us dear readers if it is worth paying for DLC in general, or whether we should just save our money and buy entirely new games instead of paying to update the ones we already own (or even if EG could have afforded to buy a case of Jameson and the game of Twister instead with the money).
There has been a lot of talk about the value of DLC recently, and I can't think of anyone better suited to talk about it than a game reviewing site that has all the updates and has the company credit card bill to prove it. |
|
0
Here's what I was talking about with regards to Battlefield: Bad Company DLC :-
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/865/865549p1.html |
|
barnard666
10/04/08 @ 06:56
0
I find 8-- points for 4 maps just horrible, noth halo and COD are way too expensive, considering how many tyhey know they are going to sell, why not just charge 400?
@ DK_rare, well do you count XBLA games in that? because they are certainly worth the money - Ikaruga, doom for less than £4.00, all well worth the money. |
|
monkie_king
10/04/08 @ 07:27
0
yeah, creek and chinatown are superb objective maps.
i'm really missing the variety pack playlists, now the new maps have been folded into the existing modes. back to the slog of downpour and bog. i especially liked the objective playlist, nice to have a mix of sabotage, search and destroy, headquarters and domination. |
|
0
"It's very unlikely they pay for it themselves.
They get sent the games to review, why should it be different for DLC?" Because quite often EG tells us that the download content for a lot of games isn't worth paying for. Why would the publishers want EG to review the DLC when they are just going to tell people not to buy it after they have reviewed it? It would be nice to know how DLC works for gaming media anyway. And if EG had to pay for them, couldn't they claim it on tax as a work expense =P |
|
monkie_king
10/04/08 @ 07:51
0
Why would the publishers want to give EG anything to review if they might give it a poor score?
|
|
CreepinJesus
10/04/08 @ 08:02
0
"Why would the publishers want to give EG anything to review if they might give it a poor score?"
That makes no sense - why would ANY publisher give ANYTHING to ANY review board if it might get a bad score? |
|
0
It's different with DLC though. People already own the game, and the difference between paying for the DLC and not paying for it can be seeing a 4/10 review and reading negative comments on this website. DLC doesn't need reviews to sell copies, the reviews are pretty much for us so we can see what it's all about without paying for it first.
|
|
0
I can only speak as a small magazine's part time videogames editor in a minor European country, but for what it's worth: I don't get DLC for review. In some cases the content is sent on a disc and there have been cases when I've been supplied a code to download for free, but they're not pushing DLC like they do with retail titles.
|
|
Moribundman
10/04/08 @ 08:50
0
I totally agree with dk_rare that Eurogamer and (whisper it) *other* online gaming sites, as well as the associated print media need to really hold Microsoft accountable for the frankly quite silly price of DLC. Probably have to get the septic sites like IGN and Gamespot on this as well though since that's the primary marklet for this stuff.
Whilst some DLC is amazing (Oblivion's extra dungeons/bases/quest threads, or the entire Shivering Isles for 1200 points) spending half that amount on 3 multiplayer maps or guitar tracks is frankly quite silly when viewed alongside. Disguising how much you're actually paying by dressing it up as cute "Microsoft Points" doesn't get away from the fact that in Guitar Hero's case you've paid seventy quid for a game with guitar and about 70 tracks, and *then* you're paying several quid for a single track/3 tracks that you've never heard of before, and might be crap... Liking the Classic Rock and Dropkick Murphys ones though. More free packs please. Surely this is a good way for lesser known bands to publicise themselves to an audience that otherwise might not listen to them? we can pay big money for big master recording tracks by well known artists. |
|
0
@Barnard666
"I find 8-- points for 4 maps just horrible, noth halo and COD are way too expensive, considering how many tyhey know they are going to sell, why not just charge 400?" Read that back to yourself - I think you answered your own question. The CoD4 maps are good. In fact they offer a lot of variety in the full set so I was surprised they managed to bring in something new with these. I find any map you pick in CoD4 multiplayer has some genuine distinguishing features to make them worthwhile. Not all of the new maps suit my style or are to my taste, but with a little adjustment I can get some good value and enjoyment out of each of them. |
|
BadBoyBonner
10/04/08 @ 10:39
0
800 points is way too much for 3.5 CoD4 maps - extra content should be done a la Bungie and Epic - release at a cost for a while then free a few months later.
Can't help but feel that there will be far too much money to be made by releasing DLC to not do it. For me I just feel like the developers are trying to cheat me out of my money for something I have already paid. It's a bit like GT5 prologue but in reverse. If the developers want to benefit from an early release, to avoid a similar game or a known blockbuster fair enough, but don't then charge me for things that should have been in the game anyway (looks at Crackdown). There have been a few pieces of DLC that truly warrant their existence i.e. Shivering Isles, but mostly they feel like tacky rip-offs. If developers kept releasing new free content then obviously you'd keep your original disc to play the new stuff and introduce new people to it for another sale, but if they over charge for it - obviously some people will simply trade in the game and the developer will loose as they pick up no revenue from second hand sales (but obviously hope that said gamer will buy the DLC - which is much less likely (which does not mean impossible to all you argumentative types) if their the type of buyer who waits for secondhand games. Obviously it begs the question of how much money the developers make directly by cutting out the retail chain - which I suspect is considerable and thus allows them to overcome their moral obligation to gamers whilst satisfying the abacus suits. Like I say, some are genuine but most should have shipped with the game or be free. IMO DLC, sucks but I guess it is here to stay. |
|
0
Free-for-all & Cage Match I think.
@BadBoyBonner Couple of points. 1) I don't think you can argue CoD4 was short of content on release - it shipped with more online modes/maps than some dedicated online shooters. 2) If the content is good we can't continue to begrudge devs making money this way. Its almost like we feel we have a right to this stuff when you see good devs going to the wall all the time. If you don't value the content enough to pay for it then don't buy it. No one is forcing you. Think back a fair few years and see what your £50-£70 got you then in terms of game content and how much development costs have rocketed since then. We really need to wise up that if we want this hobby to continue with the depth and diversity we currently enjoy then we have to pay for it and not continue to expect the moon on a stick all the time. |
|
0
@ DrDamn
Agreed. I have never been an avid PC gamer so I wasn't even aware that traditionally DLC on PCs was free until recently. But to be honest, if I like a game enough to want to keep playing it then I am more than happy to pay for the extra content. Obviously you need to weigh up the quality of the content and the price that is being charged for it before making the purchase, but it's exactly the same when buying a new game. Free DLC is NEVER going to happen on consoles, no matter how much you whinge about it. And PC games will probably start charging for it eventually. I am afraid this is a sad truth but one everyone needs to come to terms with. |
|
0
The next thing EA needs to figure out is how they can profit from fan made content.
But I still fondly remember paying 40 quid for a game and knowing that I had paid for the entire finished game. These days it is 50 quid for a game plus another 20+ pounds for DLC. And without DLC you are not getting the complete game, you own an incomplete product. And there is nothing wrong with wanting everything in a game. Collectionism has been a part of gaming since forever. It's just now that you have to keep paying a fee to get everything in the game. Which is just wrong. Publishers could ask that maps and content be taken out of the already finished game before it goes gold, just so they can sell it back to us later on. And of course we are already aware of the concept of online gamers being punished or at a disadvantage for not buying certain updates. |
|
monkie_king
10/04/08 @ 12:33
0
CreepinJesus: uh, that was kind of my point.
I think with paid-for content, there's a distinction between stuff that was created but held back deliberately (like Katamari Damacy, the Bad Company guns), and stuff that's been developed after the game was released. The former is effectively a way of raising the retail price of the game, and is pretty cynical. The latter, well, in COD4's case there's been a significant investment of development and testing resource put into the new maps. That investment isn't justified if there's no return to be made on it. Although I think the idea of making them free after 3 months is a good compromise, as you've probably already sold it to most of the people who'd consider paying for it, by then. I suppose 800 pts is a little pricey, considering that Killhouse is team-tactical/ffa/cage match only, that's about £2 per map. But I'm going to get a lot more out of it than I would from most of the 800 pt XBLA games that are on the Marketplace. |
|
0
@monkie_king
I used to think like that but why should *when* content is developed have anything to do with your right to it? If a game is good value then buy but otherwise don't. The idea of releasing DLC which was developed during the main game production should not be an inherently bad one. It's a cost saving exercise, but you have to remember that this content *did* have a cost. Value is the issue not DLC. I think the root of the problem is the idea that almost all games warrant a £50 price tag when there is clearly a lot of difference between the amount of effort & cost which goes into the games themselves. There should be more flexible pricing schemes, more publishers brave enough to use them and more punters savvy enough to buy properly. |
|
0
"The idea of releasing DLC which was developed during the main game production should not be an inherently bad one. It's a cost saving exercise, but you have to remember that this content *did* have a cost. "
Games have a cost, and that cost is already very high. How would you feel if you bought Kill Bill Ultimate Edition on DVD at full price, except you find out that the fight scene between Lucy Lui and Uma Therman was cut out, and that you would have to pay 8 pounds to add that scene to your movie? You would feel cheated, you would feel that your "Ultimate Edition" wasn't so ultimate anymore, as it was missing key parts that you are forced to buy seperately. DLC can offer "more" on top of a complete game. But the general feeling is that it hasn't been. Instead DLC is selling us stuff that should have been in the game to begin with, should have been free to download or things that you wouldn't have wanted to begin with (but people still buy them anyway). I would gladly pay for extra missions, extra multiplayer modes and extra fleshed out characters. But I feel cheated when I have to pay 10 quid on top of the 50 I already paid for a game, just to get multiplayer maps that are uninspiring but necessary to continue your complete online experience. When I am asked to pay for more maps and such I feel like a message has come up in the game saying "GAME OVER, please insert more coins to continue playing". |
|
0
In the case of CoD4, the DLC, now that the maps are in the general playlists and not separated, has a negative impact on those who chose not to buy it, as they are removed from lobbies whenever a new map is picked.
It should be a requirement of DLC that it does not alter the way a game is experienced, if the person decides not to buy it. |
|
0
@dk_rare
Your movie analogy doesn't exactly work. If they left out an integral section of the game then maybe. They already do a form of DLC this with special edition DVDs. Buy the regular film and it is a complete experience. Pay a bit more and we'll give you a DVD we have spent extra time putting delete scenes and blooper on. Do you feel cheated buying the regular DVD? How the feck does not having these extra maps in CoD4 make the online experience less complete than it already was. It shipped with tonnes of content. As gamers we have to wake up and smell the coffee. Unless devs have a better chance of making money we will continue to see consolidation of the businesses and the only people makin games will be EA. It costs a hell of a lot of money to make games, we don't have a right to this stuff. DLC is in its infancy still and we will continue to get water testers like Horse Armor and Buyable Guns. Shoot these stupid ideas down for the poor value they offer, but don't deny devs money for content they have worked hard on. If its not good value to you don't buy it, that goes for the original games and the DLC which comes after it. |
|
0
@ Moribundman
Disguising how much you're actually paying by dressing it up as cute "Microsoft Points" doesn't get away from the fact that in Guitar Hero's case you've paid seventy quid for a game with guitar and about 70 tracks, and *then* you're paying several quid for a single track/3 tracks that you've never heard of before, and might be crap... I went to the pub for an hour last night. 2 pints of beer cost me a fiver. I suspect you'd get a lot more than an hours entertainment out of the GHIII song packs priced at £4.25. Therefore I think as entertainment goes they are good value. Also you can preview the track packs via a video so you know exactly what you are getting before forking out your hard earned.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/04/08 @ 15:49
|
|
0
Annoyingly, there's some GH3 tracks i'd buy quite happily, on their own. I don't however wanna pay for an extra two tracks i really don't want.
They must be losing quite a lot of sales due to the weird way they package these songs, surely? Also, My God, that Turok screenshot looks like shit
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/04/08 @ 15:58
|
|
0
"went to the pub for an hour last night. 2 pints of beer cost me a fiver. I suspect you'd get a lot more than an hours entertainment out of the GHIII song packs priced at £4.25. Therefore I think as entertainment goes they are good value."
Personally I'd prefer two pints than three songs on Guitar Hero. |
|
cyber_nicco
10/04/08 @ 19:46
0
You're all wrong about the Broadcast map - it's awesome fun to play. Granted, more original work was maybe put into something like Creek, Broadcast is well worth being paid for...
|
|
BadBoyBonner
10/04/08 @ 21:07
0
Where are all those Micro-transactions touted from Live's inception?
How about 100 or 50 points a map depending on size and modes it can be used for? Sounds a much better soloution to me allowing more choice and varying levels of commitment. Why when we are dealing with a non-boxed item are we still expected to accept chunks being lumped together? Surely the downloadable sales model could allow greater choice and flexibility while offering minimal technical problems. Profits could be easily split allowing percentages resolution down to 1% (100pts) or 2%(50pts) increments. It isn't just the price that is sometimes very disappointing, but the way the whole process is being managed. |
|
beastmaster
10/04/08 @ 22:46
0
I like the COD4 maps. Happy about the price too. All in all, I'm happy. Can't play anything else the moment. Not been Will have to give my growing stockpile of games a go at some point.
|
Comments: 1-39 of 39 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
